Please tell the full story of Bathurst's pineapple plant

YOUR article Bathurst fights proposed pine plant (December 5) contains elements that undermine responsible reporting.

It is quite apparent that Robert Gess of the Bathurst Residents and Ratepayers Association is not going to respect the extremely stringent environmental impact process that is followed by the DEAET in the Eastern Cape.

Firstly, the amount of furfural that is projected to be produced is far less than the nine tons per day that the article claims.

Furthermore, nowhere is furfural classified as toxic.

The EIA Draft Scoping Report motivates very clearly by means of scientific evaluation why Coega is suitable for the construction of the proposed production plant.

Furthermore, lack of infrastructure is sited as one of the reasons why it could not be situated close to Bathurst.

Not only would the infrastructure in and around Bathurst have to be upgraded, but all the way from Bathurst to Coega.

It is premature to publish these assumptions by the Bathurst Residents and Ratepayers Association as fact since the EIA process is still addressing their issues.

It is a pity that you didn't verify the statement that building was planned to start in January 2006 with Specialised Solutions.

There is no possibility of any construction starting before the DEAET has issued this Record of Decision.

The statement that bromelain alone would generate a profit of R26 billion over 10 years is factually incorrect.

In the light of objective reporting it might also be necessary to get the views of the residents of Nolukhanyo, the PGA (Pineapple Growers Association), the Ndlambe Pineapple Farmers Union, the Peddie pineapple growers, the Ndlambe Municipality and the Eastern Cape government.

The kind of development would become the measure against which future developments in the Eastern Cape could be evaluated, since it fits perfectly into the STEP programme and biodiversity legislation.

The development would pay due consideration to all the environmental aspects while aiding much needed economic development in the Eastern Cape. - André Hill, Centurion

Alison Stent replies:

The figure for the production of furfural comes from page 70 of the scoping report, produced by the environmental consultants hired by SpecSol, which says: "The production of furfural from the spent liquor is estimated to be 3200 tons per year (~9 tons per day.)"

On page 77, a table titled "Operational Design Parameters" and dated July 24 suggests 4 000 tons a year would be produced.

On the toxicity of furfural, I quoted from page 109 of the scoping report: "A particular chemical of concern that will be produced by the plant is furfural. It is classified as both a toxic compound as well as a flammable (sic).

"It is also considered to be an ecotoxin.

"Possible contamination to soil, groundwater and surface water can also occur in case of emergencies during transportation of the hazardous chemical substances."

There are a number of other references to furfural as a toxin in the report.

Our interest in publishing the report now is because a document concerning the project has been released for public comment with a 21-day deadline.

Further, concerning the date of construction our report makes it clear that this was originally the intended starting date.

You are correct in pointing out that our figure for the projected profit from bromelain is incorrect.

It should have read R25,8bn instead of R26,6bn according to various documents provided to us.

Mayor still has some explaining to do

I REFER to the article Maclean approved funds (December 3).

The comments made by acting city manager Peter King regarding the mayor's authority to authorise transfers of money are perfectly correct. The mayor does indeed have delegated authority to do this.

My caucus however continues to question whether or not such transfers, made prior to any decision on a mayoral house even being considered by council, were not irregular, illegal and constituted a pecuniary interest and a benefit. We ask this in terms of the following Clauses in the Code of Conduct for Councillors:

Section 5: Disclosure of Interest: which reads as follows: A Councillor who, ... acquired or stands to acquire any direct benefit from a contract concluded with the Municipality must disclose full particulars of the benefit of which the Councillor is aware at the first meeting of the municipal council at which it is possible for the councillor to make the disclosure.

This did not happen.

Section 6: Personal Gain: 6.2. Except with the prior consent of the municipal council, a councillor may not be a party to or be a beneficiary under a contract for the provision of goods or services to the municipality. This did not happen.

Section 12: Benefit: A Councillor may not use, ... benefit from any property or asset owned, controlled or managed by the Municipality to which that Councillor has no right. The work/goods were being ordered, performed, purchased by the Mayor for a house in which he intended to live and for which there was no authority given by Council.

These are some of the questions that the Speaker, supported by the opposition, excluding the NNP, attempted to have answered until blocked by the ANC provincial hierarchy.

We will be very interested to see the reactions of the Auditor General. - Avis Rens, Democratic Alliance Caucus leader, East London

Disabled experience

A RECENT knee operation left me temporarily disabled. It was an interesting experience when I needed to shop. Pick 'n Pay at Beacon Bay Retail Park not only supply a pre-arranged wheel chair but the manager met me with it beside my friend's car, parked in one of their disabled parking bays close to the store. An assistant was allowed to push our trolley while my friend pushed the wheel chair. I paid at an especially wide exit point. Thank you, Pick 'n Pay.

One of the ATM machines at FNB in the same park is at a low level, available to wheelchair users.

At Checkers, Nahoon, when I was on crutches, later, staff were equally helpful and the special parking bays are close to the entrance.

However, visiting hotels along the Esplanade was another story. Driven there and on crutches, I noticed several ramps that were too short and steep for wheel chairs and was glad of the friend to help negotiate steps with no hand rails.

The experience has made me more understanding of the difficulties of those permanently disabled.

I hope the hotels in question will do something to remedy the situation.

I am told Vincent Park Centre has disabled parking on the lower level and certainly there is a lift up but if, like me, you don't know that, and go to shop from the upper open car park you see only special parking for motor cycles. On one crutch now, and able to drive, I was lucky when someone vacated a nearby space. Can Vincent Park do something about this please? - Beryl Bowie, East London